Posted: Sep 22, 2019 3:26 am
by Jayjay4547
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:That [focus on telling human origin story in terms of other humans] stopped them from even seeing what kind of animal our ancestor Australopithecus was. [fully adapted into hand weapon use],[/..

Ahh we're back to your magical vision.

That magical vision of 'seeing' what baraminological KIND (you frothing creationist) of animal "Australopithecus" (the genus) was... that special power you possess which somehow also lets you fail to know the difference between an afarensis and an africanus, a male and a female, and a juvenile and an adult...

And you STILL THINK YOU'RE CREDIBLE! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

When I put up a pic of a sculptured Australopithecus skull to demonstrate their distinctive lack of fangs, Spearthrower declared flatly that it was of a female, that he knew this because he knew what specimens the sculptor had used, blah blah. On a hunch I asked the manufacturer (Dinosaur Corp) whether it was of a male or female, and was told, MALE. Now he jeers at me for supposedly failing to know the difference between male and female.

Ironically, the distinctive feature across the Australopithecus genus, was that neither male nor females had fang like canines.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
The influence of theist ideology, associated with the dialectic developed in the CvE debate, is a tangled and large topic but the thread I’m exploring here is pretty simple: [i]Darwin showed how to tell the human origin story in terms of humans only,.[you-all copied that slavishly so you get the story wrong. Biologists in general, haven’t been so stupid].

Ummm no. Not only did Darwin not do that, Biology has never done that either....You're breaking up, JJ... you need to take your meds.....Literally no one ever has told the human origins narrative in terms only of humans. It's another of your inane strawman attempts.

There is a population of human origin narratives told in terms of evolution, just as there is a genre of detective novels. If you can find one that isn’t in terms of other humans or at least humans acting on animals (hunting) rather than reacting to the will of other species, then bring it up here for discussion.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s you who carelessly slings shit around.

Wouldn't need to if there wasn't a rabid, deranged bigot manically obsessed with expressing his hatred of me because I don't genuflect to his antiquated magical myth.

For a long time I have experienced ratskep posters reacting extravagantly to my posts and I have come to see that as a group ploy. If you keep on jeering at me, that inclines others to disregard what I say. That goes with the territory. But you are particularly on my case, obsessed with cutting my sentences, denying any capacity in me to make a point and grossly misrepresenting my position. Cito also, to a great extent. It’s not me who is obsessed here, it’s you.